Does democracy protect the environment? The role of the Arctic Council

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of democratic institutions on environmental policy stringency and the degree to which it is affected by membership in the Arctic Council. We hypothesize that, relative to countries with no Arctic presence, countries present in the Arctic given their territorial, trade, and touristic interests are more pro-environmentally inclined as they experience the effects of global warming first-hand, and the quality of democratic institutions may reinforce this effect. Our empirical analysis based on global macroeconomic data suggests that countries with democratic institutional environments are associated with more response to Arctic status and more stringent environmental policies. Moreover, the presence of democratic governments in the Arctic increases the stringency of both market- and non-market-based environmental regulations. The suggestive estimated monetary value associated with the impact of democratic institutions in the Arctic is about 101,000 international dollars per capita. These findings underscore that the development of democratic institutions may lead to strong welfare improvements and can be used in the design of international environmental agreements for Arctic area protection.

Continuous Militarization as a Mode of Governance of Indigenous People in the Russian Arctic

“…This is rooted in efforts already during the Cold War making environmental cooperation a field for improving diplomatic relations: In the mid-1970s were signed a series of environmental cooperation agreements between US and Russia, and in the 1980s between Russia and Norway (Vladimirova, 2022). The 1990s witnessed democratization and diffusion of environmental values by the EU, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and nation-states (Garbis et al, 2023;Hall et al, 2022;Mavisakalyan et al, 2023;Obydenkova et al, 2022;Vladimirova, 2023b). Studies point to the role of the EU enlargement in implementing environmental policies in post-communist states as well as raising public awareness about environmental challenges (Ambrosio et al, 2022;Nazarov & Obydenkova, 2022;Stepanov et al, 2023).…”

Arctic environmental governance: challenges of sustainable development

“…Among various RIOs acting in the Arctic, the AC stands out as one of the most influential ones. Contributions to this TC look into the AC at the edge of geopolitical shifts in 2022 (Filimonova et al 2023;Mavisakalyan et al 2023;Stepanov et al 2023). However, the main focus of existing studies has traditionally been on the AC's member-states (Borozna 2024;Kochtcheeva 2022;Stepanov and Makarov 2022).…”

“…The second group of actors in AEG is composed of nation-states. In this TC, Mavisakalyan et al (2023) examine the role of the political regimes of the states (including Arctic states) in the implementation of environmental policies in the context of the Arctic region. Through the analysis of quantitative data available through the multi-dimensional index of environmental regulations in the OECD, the authors evaluate the level of democracy in the stringency of environmental policies employed by national-states in their analysis.…”

Arctic Regional Governance: Actors and Transformations

“…Studies on regional environmental governance have brought to our attention the importance of the variety of actors and their implications for the development of the field of area studies (e.g., Haas, 2016). The most well-known examples of these actors are the EU (e.g., Andonova, 2003;Nazarov & Obydenkova, 2022;Selin & VanDeveer, 2015), the UN (e.g., Conca et al, 2017;Dalmer, 2021), the Arctic Council (AC; e.g., Filimonova et al, 2023;Lavelle, 2022;Mavisakalyan et al, 2023), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), global forums (Ambrosio et al, 2022;Obydenkova et al, 2022;Tosun & Shyrokykh, 2022), banks, and IP (Buntaine & Parks, 2013;Kuyper & Bäckstrand, 2016;Vladimirova, 2023).…”